HuffPo: Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fai

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

HuffPo: Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fai

HuffPo: Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fair Trial.
.
I have no idea what to make of this. The Huffington Post is arguing that Americans have no legal right to shoot a violent attacker because it violates the criminalís right to a fair trial. I feel confident in saying this is by far the dumbest attempt to subvert our gun ownership rights ever and thatís saying a lot considering how insanely stupid gun grabbers are.
.
Justin Curmi is a dyslexic guy with a degree in philosophy. According to his bio he is, ďA blogger that seeks to engage people in thought and conversation through presenting new views to matters, new or old.Ē Writing for The HuffPo, he presented one hell of a view concerning our right to not be murdered by a maniac killer.
.
Oddly enough, this thing starts out very un-HuffPosty by acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment does protect private gun ownership:
.
The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (ďthe right of the people to keep and bear armsĒ) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.
.
Itís still worded sarcastically, but that does seem like the author reluctantly agrees with the peopleís right to keep and bear arms. Now here is where things become unhinged:
.
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.
.
There are an awful lot of flaws with this argument, the first being that a violent attacker hasnít been arrested or charged yet when they are trying to commit a terrible act. They arenít due their day in court until they are formally charged. In addition, a person committing an unlawful act forfeits certain legal protections.
.
Second, the Bill of Rights only limits the power of the federal government, not the people. The Constitution doesnít lay out all of our rights, just the ones the feds canít mess with. We have other rights besides what is in the document, and one of those is the basic human right to live.
.
Third, nothing in the Constitution forbids the people from defending themselves against a deadly attack. There is no clause in the 6th Amendment that says a person cannot defend himself or herself with deadly force because it interferes with a criminalís right to a fair trial. There have also been no Supreme Court rulings in this area.
.
And if you thought that was idiotic, check out the other reasons why the author thinks we canít use guns in self-defense:
.
Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.
.
Thatís almost like a cohesive thought, I guess. Basically this guy is saying that guns are only for overthrowing the government so they cannot be used for defense or hunting or target shooting. Plus, since criminals use guns for crime, law-abiding people canít use them to stop crime.
.
The only thing I can conclude here is that The Huffington Post paid Justin Curmi with psychedelic mushrooms and gave him a big advance for his writing. This isnít even normal gun-grabber ignorance and misrepresentation of fact. This is balls-out/tin-foil hat insanity. The only thing thought provoking about his argument is; why isnít he in an institution where he can get the help he needs?
.
Read More:
.HuffPo: Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fair Trial – Firearmz
.
My Thoughts:
.
That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard shooting a violent criminal who is holding you at gunpoint is the best thing to do because it says our country thousands and thousands of dollars just on the trial and probably tens of thousands of dollars housing him in prison taking all that into consideration bullets are much cheaper as somebody is committing a violent crime they get what they deserve and hopefully if they survive they might even learn something.
.
I don`t care! If someone Pulls a gun on me, he`s going to get shot! Positive proof that stupid actions have consequences.

The only easy day was yesterday
Dedicated to my brother in law who died
doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

I'm sure all the violent street creepers out there heartily agree. Of course they will never see the reticle because they aren't he sort that reads papers and I'm sure a few can't even read. Besides who needs to read, there's no directions on a crack or meth pipe The Snowflake crowd naturally doesn't worry about such matters as encountering one or more of these people. They stay far away hidden behind guarded Gated communities pretending violent crime always happens to people who somehow deserve or are asking for it. Then they continually portray these predators as victims themselves. Absolute hypocrisy at its worst.

Blues, we gotta know what those fools are thinking...Huffpo is a pretty decent source. Its mind-numbing how far fetched the thoughts that come from liberal minds are and I believe the goal is to be So far left that 'a little left' seems normal and palatable.

Blues, we gotta know what those fools are thinking...Huffpo is a pretty decent source. Its mind-numbing how far fetched the thoughts that come from liberal minds are and I believe the goal is to be So far left that 'a little left' seems normal and palatable.

I get what you're sayin', but I already know what they think in general, and getting down to specifics with fools like that is such tediously insipid banter that I can't stand it. But then again, it was as much a comment on the person placing the OP as it was about HuffPo, and pretty much for the same reason.

BTW, in case I didn't notice it back in Jan., or haven't said it before for any other reason, welcome back.

Blues

No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

ďReligion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.Ē ― Steven Weinberg

XD, I've related this before, my mother was born in Yugoslavia in 1942 and spent most of the first 9 years of her life as a refugee moving through Germany and finally to Austria.. bottom line, she has very little appreciation for the suffering caused by disarming people..it just doesn't sink in. A couple of years ago she firmly stated 'no one's life is worth shooting someone over'. And I looked at her and said, 'So a bad buy comes in armed and takes my life, the life of husband, a father, a son(hers obviously), a brother, an uncle... Is MY life not worth Protecting for those Very Reasons and whose life would you rather see lost? Mine? or a bad guy who cares nothing about whether any of us take our next breaths?? How do you think my wife or my daughter would get along knowing I could have saved myself??' I think I stunned her into putting some thought on it.

Its the emotional response v the analytic response. We have to draw them to thought and away from emotion.... how we do that is the challenge.